Jump to content

About Gandhi - Is this true?


rkt.india

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Garuda said:

I have and Im sure Christianity's exploits were far more brutal than Islam. They have been more secretive than mohammedans. But I also urge you to read SL war on tamils. Basically both the SL govt and LTTE got its training in the land of the chosen for war profiteering.

The war on Tamils was more on ethnic lines. Sure religion was involved but only to a certain degree. While christians slaughtered countless innocents in the name of religion.

Also the fact that you could only come up with one example in the 2500 year long history of Buddhism proves my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Green Monster said:

alternate facts, to defame a once in a generation type of soul, should be condemned... if most so-called "indians" defame a verified mahatma like GAndhiji, they are fools imo...

I know you are trolling once again so I would refrain from replying further.

Have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beetle said:

Similarly.....Gandhi will not  be an incestrous child abuser...he was  showing the people his sexual restraint by sleeping with naked nieces. He was not a narcissistic pedophile ...he was a saint who sacrificed. What Bullshit.

 

Edited and posted separately because this is  a wrong of a whole different level.

Could very well be the case that he is innocent and only experimenting. I think such sensationalization that Gandhi is guilty of something is only because of Gandhi's popularity in the popular media since independence. Media want to say something bad so that more people will react to it and increase their TRPs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Garuda said:

Sure it was done on ethnic lines but it was under the blessings of buddhist gurus. I'm seeing a similarity with Hindutva. I know enough about christian slaughter too, the witchhunt in europe and the americas and also the middle east during the crusades.

Once again you seem to miss the point. Even if we let's say describe the SL Tamil conflict as religious one that's just one example in around 3 millennia history of Buddhism.

Otoh you can write books on Christianity's noble jehad across the globe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sarcastic said:

Could very well be the case that he is innocent and only experimenting. I think such sensationalization that Gandhi is guilty of something is only because of Gandhi's popularity in the popular media since independence. Media want to say something bad so that more people will react to it and increase their TRPs. 

Experimenting with minor girls?This bit is known .

You think young girls like to sleep naked with uncles so that he can check if he can control  himself. Who wants to be used as sexual guinea pigs?That is so disgusting and narcissistic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Green Monster said:

brother, no history is your strong point!!! seems u read wikipedia articles only, thats why u wont provide evidence for anything u says to me earlier!!!

I provide more scholarly evidence than you ever have, which is why you've tucked tail and run away. 

Everyone can see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beetle said:

A father is supposed to be a part of the child's life even after a divorce. He can divorce the wife but not the child.

 

A father who just walks out of the life of his child is a bad irresponsible father , no matter how well he provides for the abandoned family. He may have other qualities but has to take the blame of being the absentee father. 

 

That is what I mean....you can't just say he is all good . He did something that was not good and he should be called out for that irrespective of all the good he may have done for others.

So by the context of the pre-modern world, any long distance trader, traveller, envoy to a foreign court, etc. are all bad fathers- for they usually spend 10-20 years at a stretch away from home....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

So by the context of the pre-modern world, any long distance trader, traveller, envoy to a foreign court, etc. are all bad fathers- for they usually spend 10-20 years at a stretch away from home....

James Cook although a great discoverer was a bad father since he spent all his life voyaging to new lands.

 

Albert Einstein was a poor husband since he had his mind always immersed in Physics and thus paying little attention to his wife. I mean who cares about relativity and sh!t like that when taking his wife to shopping was more important.

 

Roald Amundsen was a bad father too since he risked journeying to Antarctica where there was little chance that he would come back in one piece.

 

I can go on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, beetle said:

A father is supposed to be a part of the child's life even after a divorce. He can divorce the wife but not the child.

 

A father who just walks out of the life of his child is a bad irresponsible father , no matter how well he provides for the abandoned family. He may have other qualities but has to take the blame of being the absentee father. 

 

That is what I mean....you can't just say he is all good . He did something that was not good and he should be called out for that irrespective of all the good he may have done for others.

 

I am afraid these are the "modern standards" of fatherhood that father has to personally take time to take care of the child. In ancient times, people (especially kings) had dozens of children. And people were travelling for work/trade/war and it was a norm that child was taken care by the wife and family. 

And normally sons only joined the fathers in their work (especially the Kings) when they were grown up. 

 

Therefore, I personally feel that blame goes more to the "Ancient Ethics" as compared to Siddharta. 

 

One Question:

"Do you think Siddharta would have been able to attain Nirvana and to bring the revolution had he stayed with his wife and the child?"

Edited by Alam_dar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I am afraid these are the "modern standards" of fatherhood that father has to personally take time to take care of the child. In ancient times, people (especially kings) had dozens of children. And people were travelling for work/trade/war and it was a norm that child was taken by the wife and family. 

And normally sons only joined the fathers in their work (especially the Kings) when they were grown up. 

 

Therefore, I personally feel that blame goes more to the "Ancient Ethics" as compared to Siddharta. 

 

 the blame goes more to the Ethics as compared to Siddharta. 

 

One Question:

"Do you think Siddharta would have been able to attain Nirvana and to bring the revolution had he stayed with his wife and child?"

Not important. His son's birthday parties and Parent teachers meetings in school were far more important than these stupid nirvanas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Personal Opinion (others have full rights to disagree with me): 

 

(1)  Moses/David = Muhammad

For example Muhammad attacked the tribes, killed all the men (including old men) and children who already got the naval hairs (i.e 12-14 years of age). These old men and children of 12 years had nothing to do with the war, but Muhammd didn't pardon them. 

And then Muhammad took all the women and small children as slaves. All the captured women had to perform the "sex service". 

These women and small children had nothing to do with the wars. 

 

This is the same for Moses/David. Please read the old testament which is witnessing that Moses/David also attacked the tribes and nations and they not only killed all the men, but sometimes they also slaughtered all the women and the children too. No one could deny this genocide as it is present in old testament itself. 

 

Therefore, for me Moses/David=Muhammad

 

 

(2) Jesus (only slightly better than Moses/Mohammad)

 

Although the teachings of Jesus were to love, but still he is only slightly better than Moses/Mohammad. 

Reasons are:

* Do you know Muhammad was also very kind-hearted? 

Yes, it is true. 

Please read Quran and Ahadith, which are full witness to this. 

 

But the problem is this that this kind-heartiness was present in Muhammad only till the time he was "weak" in Mecca and Kuffar were stronger. During whole  Meccan Islamic Period  (i.e. 23 years), you could read the Quranic Verses which are full of humanity and justice and love and there is no verse in this whole period which goes against humanity/justice/love. 

 

But as soon as Muhammad got power in Madina, then standards changed and same Muhammad turned into tyrant. And during last years (after victory of Mecca), Muhammad got absolute powers. This is the time when he ordered to slaughter each and every Kafir if he does not accept Islam. 

 

Same is true with Jesus. 

As compared to Moses/David/Muhammad, Mr. Jesus was not able to get the absolute power to plunder his enemies. Therefore we hear this talk of love and humanity by Jesus. 

 

Nevertheless, as an Atheist, my opinion about Mr. Jesus is this that he was also a fraud like Moses/Muhammad. He also played the Drama of god and angels etc. 

 

Due to this Drama, Mr. Jesus was unable to deny the Old Testament and he was also unable to deny the wrongdoings/killings of Moses/David and Talmud, and thus the religious books of Jews (along with God's orders of killings) also became the part of Christianity. That played their role later when Christians got the power and they also started killing the opponents right and left and took the women and children as slaves (just like Muhammad). 

 

Therefore, no way that Jesus was any different to Moses/Muhammad

 

 

(3) Siddharta

There is absolutely no way that Siddharta could ever be compared with Jesus/Moses/Muhammad where later only deceived the humanity by doing the drama of god and angels for their personal gains. 

 

Siddharta was an Atheist/Agnostic who never deceived the people in name of any god. But he told them clearly that all his teachings came only through "human freethinking". His teachings woke up the humanity in people. 

 

Therefore, it is an utter insult to Siddharta when he is compared with people like Moses/Jesus/Muhammad. 

 

Siddharta could and should only be compared with people like Confucius, who was also a freethinker and they never did the drama of god/angels to deceive the people. 

 

Edited by Alam_dar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beetle said:

Experimenting with minor girls?This bit is known .

You think young girls like to sleep naked with uncles so that he can check if he can control  himself. Who wants to be used as sexual guinea pigs?That is so disgusting and narcissistic.

 

I am not talking about the specific thing what Gandhiji was doing. I will be honest that I have not done any research into what Gandhiji really did and whether he is indeed guilty of something wrong or he is being framed for it. 

I am talking about your post which says that "even Gandhiji is right in what he is doing". I am supporting your point of view that Gandhiji MAY NOT doing something wrong. This is based on what you implied in your statement and not my assessment of what Gandhiji is doing. 

 

In summary, I am saying is just as Siddhart's action of going away from home are misinterpreted to be unethical actions, Gandhiji's actions are also framed to be wrong and sensationalized in the media in the recent times by people with vested interests. 

 

I certainly do not fully attest Sidharth but that was required. Regarding Gandhiji, I do not know. If you think it is ok, I am explaining the analogy. If you think what Gandhiji is wrong in doing what he did, then it probably is (I would assume you may have done a fair assessment after your reading about that). That does not mean that we have to put Sidhart's action in the same boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Green Monster said:

brother please provide the books for all off us to read to gain the immense "knowledge" of history u have :phehe:

Munafiq , since you cannot source actual peer reviewed articles or university research papers, you need to learn how to google better. Things about Genghis Khan is easily googled for proper sources

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Garuda said:

Alright I'll bite. Prove that this really happened

First hand source. Marco Polos description of visiting South India is also consistent with travellers of that period and later.

Again, stop dodging the question- a person claimed he was in India 800 years ago and wrote about his experience. Which is consistent with other travellers. What's your basis of disputing it ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So by the context of the pre-modern world, any long distance trader, traveller, envoy to a foreign court, etc. are all bad fathers- for they usually spend 10-20 years at a stretch away from home....

Yes if they leave their sleeping spouse and child without any future plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sarcastic said:

am talking about your post which says that "even Gandhiji is right in what he is doing". I am supporting your point of view that Gandhiji MAY NOT doing something wrong.

:facepalm:it was a sarcastic post. I do not support Gandhi or his perverted ways in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sarcastic said:

. If you think what Gandhiji is wrong in doing what he did, then it probably is (I would assume you may have done a fair assessment after your reading about that). That does not mean that we have to put Sidhart's action in the same boat. 

I do not.

That is why I seperated my post about Gandhi from post about Siddharth and Ram.

 

Siddharth and Ram's  certain conducts  are open to interpretation and personal views on the matter.People can have different views on what they feel is fair or unfair .

 

Gandhi's conduct was totally different and comes under criminal conduct. It is  not even open to interpretation .

Edited by beetle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...